Pennsylvania House votes to require owners of seized animals to pay for their care

LANSDALE —Back in September 2002, the Montgomery County SPCA seized 96 cats and nine dogs, as well as hamsters, mice and turtles, from the home of Hatfield resident Janet Jones, who was charged with 105 counts of animal cruelty. The following year, a judge ordered Jones to pay $45,600 in restitution fees to the MCSPCA for the cost of the animals’ care while the case was pending. Because the animals are considered property under Pennsylvania law, the MCSPCA wasn’t permitted to offer any of them for adoption until the case was resolved.

But Jones appealed the court’s decision and fought the charges all the way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which ultimately refused to hear the case in June 2005. By that time, the costs of care for the animals — many of which required intensive veterinary attention — had ballooned to $267,000. Jones was ordered to pay the $45,600, but the MCSPCA was on the hook for the rest.

And that’s hardly an isolated case. As MCSPCA Executive Director Carmen Ronio explained, similar instances involving seizures of large numbers of animals from people, typically hoarders, who are currently not compelled by law to assume responsibility for daily animal care while fighting the charges — and sometimes never pay a dime, even upon conviction — happens many times a year.

“We’re here to care for abused animals, but since we’re not allowed to find homes for them while the cases are pending, large seizures like that drain the funds donated to us that can go to a lot of other vital programs,” said Ronio. “It’s a strain, and we’re fortunate to be big enough to absorb those costs, but something like that can break other, smaller shelters in the state.”

That’s why Ronio and other animal welfare advocates, such as the Humane Society of the United States, are in favor of proposed state legislation that would require alleged animal abusers to pay for the care of seized animals. House Bill 82, which passed in the state House of Representatives by a 163-34 vote on Jan. 23, would establish a “Costs of Care of Seized Animals Act,” under which organizations such as the MCSPCA can petition the court to seek “reasonable costs of care” — up to $15 per animal per day for food, water and shelter, plus necessary medical costs as determined by a veterinarian — from the owners of seized animals who are facing criminal charges.

“The General Assembly finds and declares that owners of animals have a duty of care (and) because of this duty of care, owners of animals are responsible for the costs of caring for those animals and that responsibility continues if those animals are duly seized,” reads HB 82, in part.

As part of the process, organizations like the MCSPCA would have to present evidence at a hearing that the animal seizures were warranted, and a judge would make the final decision whether a defendant is forced to pay those reasonable costs. Under the proposed law, if an individual ordered to pay those costs fails to do so in a “timely” fashion, ownership of the seized animals would be forfeited to the petitioner (e.g. the animal shelter).

“This legislation will protect nonprofit animal shelters from being bankrupted by costs incurred in large scale animal rescues,” said state Rep. Brian Ellis (D-11th Dist.), the bill’s sponsor, in a statement. State Rep. Todd Stephens (R-151st Dist.), who represents parts of Montgomery County, is one of the bill’s 13 co-sponsors.

“These animals need to be cared for pending prosecution, and in the end, the owner is obligated to care for the animal regardless of where it is — in the home or at a shelter,” said Stephens. “I raised the point to my colleagues that this is not about punishing somebody unfairly. These animals need to be cared for anyway, and it’s the owner who is responsible.”

Ronio said it would be a “wonderful thing” if the bill becomes law.

“Defendants know that right now there’s no teeth for the shelters to seek financial remuneration,” he said. “But we’re also hoping that if this becomes law, the threat of having to pay those costs will entice people to voluntarily release the animals to the shelters before they’re seized. That way, we can try to place these animals in homes instead of being forced to keep them here, which is the best thing for the animals and also for us, both financially and emotionally.”

Sarah Speed, Pennsylvania state director for the Humane Society, agreed.

“Pennsylvania’s nonprofit animal shelters bear an enormous burden in caring for abused animals which must be held as evidence until trial,” she said in a statement hailing the House passage of the proposed bill, adding that it “both ensures that shelters will be able to continue their vital work and provides an incentive for a speedy trial.”

However, some groups — including the Pennsylvania Federation of Dog Clubs and the American Kennel Club — are strongly opposed to HB 82. The PFDC, which calls it the “animal confiscation bill,” objects to the proposed legislation largely on the grounds that “a person who cannot pay may lose the rights to their animals even though they are found not guilty at trial,” according to a statement on the group’s website.

In a statement posted online, the AKC concurred: “If the person accused of animal cruelty fails to pay the amount mandated by the court at any time during the trial, they will permanently forfeit all ownership rights for their animals — even if they are eventually found not guilty, or charges are dismissed.”

But Speed said that objection to the bill comes mainly from licensed dog breeders in Lancaster and Chester counties — 80 percent of Pennsylvania’s breeders operate in those two counties, she said — some of whom may actually be operating puppy mills and are concerned about how potential financial obligations resulting from animal seizures could affect profits. She added that warrants obtained by organizations like the MCSPCA for animal seizures are done at the discretion of district attorneys and the courts.

“It’s all completely justified, based on evidence of animal abuse,” she said. “It’s not just willy-nilly.”

Speed said she is hopeful that the bill, which has moved into the state Senate Judiciary Committee, will come up for a vote before June. She expects the bill to receive the same overwhelming support in the Senate as it received in the House, she said, and believes it will eventually become law.

“This is probably the most important animal welfare legislation since the Pennsylvania animal cruelty statutes went into effect,” she said.